A Political Climate of Resurrected Religiosity

Image credit

I.

The comment (see comment thread of this post) addressing my initial comment provides a demonstration of the attitude created by what I refer to as “today’s political climate of resurrected religiosity”. 

Those succumbing to it have no concern for facts nor for other human beings, their rights (e.g. not to be misrepresented and slandered), their dignity and their being entitled to elementary forms of respect.

The politico-religious mind is closed, monadic, solipsistic. The ontology of the politico-religious person is driven by faith. His perception of truth and reality is encaged in the confines of his faith. Regard for factualness and critical corroboration are being overridden by what the tenets of his religion and the conditioned reflexes of a deep conviction lead him to assume. That makes him indifferent to reality and intolerant of his fellow beings if they do not defer to the notions and imagery of his religion. Accordingly, he has an enormous potential for radical intolerance. Once the emotional force of his faith has been alerted, he is capable of hair-raising acts of delusion and mendacity to feel safely surrounded by his beliefs.

II.

Now, let me show you how this attitude of “resurrected religiosity” is amply reflected in the commenter’s comments pertaining specifically to me:

(1) “As for Georg’s comments, apparently he is from the land which created Hitler, and his ilk”.

Ad (1) The commenter presumes that I am German hailing “from the land which created Hitler, and his ilk.”

Hitler was Austrian, born and brought up in Austria, where he spent almost the entire first half of his life.

(2) “Georg, however, ignores the fact that it is the German state which provides universal, nearly free health care to it’s [sic] citizens, which citizens of the USA do not have.”

Ad (2) The assertion is plucked out of the air. The commenter does not know the first thing about my knowledge of the matter or my opinions concerning it or whether I do or do not ignore “the fact that it is the German state which …”. He has had absolutely no means to check where I stand on the issues and therefore no reason at all to deduce the proposition that “Georg, however, ignores the fact …”

The totally unsupported claim is made nonetheless. This is the way the politico-religious mind works: the zealot’s belief, his presumption creates the “fact(s)”. No need for verification. “I believe it to be so, therefore it is so.”

In total contempt of the rights of another person, if his religious impulses incite him to do so, the politico-religious will make up a story about a person he does not know, in the absence of any information justifying his contentions about that person – and present his narrative and believe in it as if it were indubitably true.

The politico-religious is faith-driven, facts and rational arguments, critical investigation – not tools made systematically use of by him – are of interest only to the extent that they confirm the biases of his faith.

(3) ”Apparently, Georg prefers US Citizens continue to go bankrupt when illness strikes, so the USG can siphon off those funds to occupy Germany.”

Ad (3) “Apparently”! Contrary to what the commenter writes, nothing whatsoever is apparent. There is not the slightest hint available to the commenter to support his drastic assertion.

Characteristic of the politico-religious mind, without flinching, the commenter resorts to unsubstantiated attributions, categorical assertions with no evidence or valid reasoning backing them up. Unrestrained by inhibitions of decency, concern for correctness or respect for an individual’s rights, he levels allegations at me that advertise my purported baseness and lack of humaneness as expressed by an alleged evil desire on my part to see people “go bankrupt when illness strikes”.

He sets me up as a despicable person by ascribing views to me without having any sources available to him that indicate whether I have an opinion concerning the issues to begin with and, if so, what it consists of.

Something – I am not going to speculate what – has triggered an urge to spit fury at me. Prisoner to the tenets of his creed, the commenter reflexively makes the victim fit the demonological stereotypes that the politico-religious have been conditioned to respond to regardless of the true circumstances.

(4) “Personally, I believe Georg would be better off lobbying Merkel to evict the US DOD from Germany, and dissolve NATO.”

Ad (4) I am not a human being to the commenter, rather a mere plaything which he can use for any purpose he may care for, shifting me around on the stage of his rhetoric as he sees fit. Having set up his own fantasy of this Georg, he condescends to tell his puppet to be “better off lobbying Merkel to evict the US DOD from Germany, and dissolve NATO.”

He does not know me, yet he tells me quite specifically what to do to “be better off”. What does he offer to substantiate his patronising proposal? Two words: “I believe”.

(5) “Of course, Georg will reply that US citizens should work until they die, and they should die for lack of medical care, preferably in a closet, so he and his fellows get a free ride.”

Ad (5) The motive of empathy for the vulnerable is used to finally finish off the whipping boy, that total stranger of whom the commenter cannot possibly know what he claims to know. Gone from the wording are any hedging reflexes (“apparently”, “personally”), he is now in full politico-religious mode, where to believe something is ipso facto to establish a fact, and so he pretends to know: 

“Of course, Georg will reply …” 

Thus, finally the completely dehumanised Georg, the robot of his indignation has been taken by the commenter to the scene of climax which abounds with death and sadism, proving the abject evil of which the devilish Georg is possessed.

In just a few lines, the commenter has violated my rights not to be misrepresented, not to be slandered, not to be lied about, not to be used as an advertising pillar of his propaganda, not to be abused as a whipping boy being penalised for misdeeds that are mere preconceptions asserted without it being possible for the accuser to authenticate his allegations or without him having made an effort to be in a position to verify them.

Hit by an impulse (a conditioning cue) to assert and defend his religion, he loses rational self-control and compulsively (re)defines the situation he sees him in according to his faith.

As the commenter demonstrates so clearly, fabrication is second nature to the politico-religious.

Conclusion: the commenter provides an object lesson of today’s political climate of resurrected religiosity, where faith in one’s ideological preconceptions is stronger than concern for facts and respect for human beings.